HC Deb 25 July 1966 vol 732 cc1196-9
24. Mr. Costain

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will revise the targets for the construction industry as set out in Command Paper No. 2764.

26. Mr. Chichester-Clark

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors in regard to the targets for the construction industry set out in Command Paper No. 2764; and what reply he has made.

36. Mr. Braine

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the National Federation of Building Trade Employers in regard to the targets of the building and construction industry set out in Command Paper No. 2764; and if he will make a statement.

39 and 40. Mr. Corfield

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what estimate he has formed of the likelihood of attaining the targets of the building and construction industry set out in Command Paper No. 2764; (2) whether he will seek to hold talks with the Contractors Plant Association with regard to the targets in Command Paper No. 2764.

Mr. Prentice

These targets together with other parts of the National Plan will fall to be reviewed in the coming months. The industry is and will continue to be involved in the working out of the Plan. Representations have been made to me about the Selective Employment Tax on the basis of its effect on the Plan targets by the building and civil engineering contractors and by other sections of the industry.

Mr. Costain

Does the Minister agree that the best barometer of future work in the building industry is the statement of the Royal Institute of British Architects on new commissions? Is he aware that under the National Plan these should be increasing by over 6 per cent. and that the latest figure shows a decrease of well over 20 per cent.? Is it surely a question not of reviewing the National Plan but of tearing up the National Plan?

Mr. Prentice

No, Sir. There are several points to be borne in mind. One is that the National Plan targets originally involved a rate of growth which would be slower in the earlier years than in the later years. This has always been recognised. It was always intended that the National Plan would involve rolling targets which would be reviewed every year. Such a review will shortly take place along the lines that I have suggested. I do not agree that the figures quoted by the hon. Member, taken out of context, give a fair picture of what is happening.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Does the Minister not think that the National Plan is now right for a commemorative issue of postage stamps?

Mr. Prentice

I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the National Plan was not only the Government's plan but was drawn up in consultation with, and with the approval of, both sides of industry. It was then approved unanimously by the House. Therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite have a responsibility in this matter—but, characteristically of them, they try to dodge their responsibility when the going gets a bit rough.

Mr. Braine

As it is now clear that the comparatively modest targets in the National Plan have been wrecked by the actions of the Government and that considerable unemployment is to be expected in the building industry, will the Minister take an early opportunity, certainly before we rise for the Summer Recess, to make a statement on Government policy towards this industry?

Mr. Prentice

That does not arise from this Question, which is about a revision of the National Plan. I have already dealt with that. I do not agree that the economic situation has been caused by the Government's action—[Interruption.] —and that sort of remark from the hon. Gentleman is typical of the irresponsible way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have reacted to the Prime Minister's statement last week. I recommend them to read the third leader in The Times today.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Since the National Plan was drawn up, the right hon. Gentleman says, in consultation with industry, may I ask whether he is prepared to say that the Plan and its targets will now be revised in consultation with industry?

Mr. Prentice

Yes, Sir. This is a natural and permanent part of the planning machinery, of which the National Plan is but one facet.

25. Mr. Costain

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has formed of the number of extra employees required in the construction industry in 1970 so that the targets in Command Paper No. 2764 can be achieved.

Mr. Prentice

The industry estimated that it would need about 100,000 extra employees to achieve the targets. I have no reason to revise its figure.

Mr. Costain

In making that statement, what increase in productivity in this industry does the Minister anticipate? Would he not agree that the lack of confidence which the industry now feels is a negation of increased productivity?

Mr. Prentice

I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not exaggerate the lack of confidence in the industry. I have talked a great deal in recent weeks with leaders of the industry and they, as responsible people, are concerned about the economic situation and have worries about it, but they do not speak with such exaggerated accents as hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

Is it not a fact that off-site workers have added to the productivity of the industry in recent years and that the National Plan stated that there should be more of them? How will Selective Employment Tax help to bring that about?

Mr. Prentice

It is true that the National Plan envisaged an increase in the number of off-site workers, and there has been an increase since the Plan was drawn up. This is encouraging from the point of view of operations such as better management techniques and so on, and, as far as I know, is still continuing.